Do genetically engineered crops and
their pesticides make you think of the term "biofortified"? Chances
are, the term biofortified makes you think of vitamins in
kids' cereals.

Mega corporations are no strangers to propaganda and public
relations.

Did you know that much of
our non-organic crops are grown with human sewage sludge? No? That's
because the practice is called "biosolids" to keep you in the dark.

You are probably aware of
the sneaky disguises that sweeteners like
aspartame and high
fructose corn syrup were attempted to be concealed in ("corn sugar,"
anyone?)

There are no power grabs out of reach for
Monsanto - they are now attempting
the most ridiculous propaganda scheme of all.

They are attempting to
manipulate definitions under
Codex Alimentarius that would allow
GMOs to fall under the classification of "biofortified" foods.

Codex is a collection of guidelines, codes and other
recommendations relating to foods, food production, and food safety
- that were created under
the United Nations' Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO).

If you are thinking this
is arbitrary and wondering why our country should pay any attention
to such guidelines, you are heading in the right direction…

In the late 1990s,
consumers feared that their vitamins and supplements would move to
prescription-only under Codex guidelines.

According toNational Health
Federation (The
NHF is the only natural health
advocate that gets a seat at Codex, by the way!):

It all started out
innocently enough several Codex Nutrition committee meetings ago
when an international nongovernmental organization (INGO)
named the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI
- and sponsored by Harvest Plus) had one of its country contacts
introduce a proposed new work at Codex (only member countries
may introduce new work at Codex, not INGOs.)

Harvest Plus' method
of increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food
crops consists of the time-honored, conventional way of
cross-breeding, not genetic engineering.

Harvest Plus, for example, will
increase the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that
malnourished populations in developing nations will receive
better nutrition.

The new work at the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Codex
Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU)
was simple:

Craft a
definition for Biofortification.

That definition could
then be used uniformly around the World to apply to those foods
conventionally fortified with higher levels of nutrients and
everyone would be on the same page whenever the term "biofortified"
was used.

Indeed, the
National Health Federation (NHF) was an early supporter at
Codex of this definition.

Poisoned in
the Womb
This year's CCNFSDU meeting - hosted by the
German Health Ministry in Berlin, Germany the first full week of
December 2017 - witnessed a lively debate about not only how to
define Biofortification but also
whether or not the very word "Biofortification" should be used at
all.

However, this was not the
beginning of the debate. The NHF had two delegates there.

At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, the Chairwoman Pia Noble
(married to a former Bayer executive) had started off the
Biofortification-definition discussion by giving her incorrect
personal opinion that the definition should be as broad as possible
and that recombinant technology should be included.

Her statement, though,
directly contradicted Australia's admission at the 2015 meeting that
if the Committee were to refer to the original 2012 document on the
scope of Biofortification, we would see that Biofortification only
refers to conventional breeding and so we should clearly exclude GM
techniques.

At last year's CCNFSDU
meeting, however, Australia was silent on the issue.

In other words, the original mandate for creating the
Biofortification definition was that it was to be defined as a
process by which the nutritional quality of food crops is improved
through conventional plant breeding with the aim of making the
nutrients bioavailable after digestion.

Not surprisingly, though,
soon enough, the Monsanto minions got their grubby little hands
on the definition through influence peddling with Codex delegates
and the Chairwoman, and the definition began changing into one that
would include genetically modified "biofortified" foods.

So, the battle is on at
Codex as to whether or not GM foods will be included within the
definition of Biofortification.

I am sure that Monsanto
would be thrilled to be able to market its synthetic products under
a name that began with the word "Bio."

As of 2017, the definition of "biofortification" - including GMOs -
under Codex has morphed into:

…the process whereby
any nutrients or related substances of all potential source
organisms (e.g. animal, plant, fungi, yeasts, bacteria) of/and
foods are increased by a measurable level [and/or] become more
bioavailable for the intended purposes.

The process applies
to any method of production [and excludes conventional
fortification]." [footnotes excluded]

Not only is the term "biofortified"
for GMO foods confusing here in the U.S., but in European countries
the prefix, bio, is used to denote "organic."

NHF took opposition with the term biofortified falling under
these vague parts of the definition:

'all potential
source organisms'

'the process
applies to any method of production'

Footnote 4
('Method of production should be determined by
National/regional authority')

Dr. Noble retired, so
hopefully her "heavy-handed" and crafty tactics of dictating the
meeting to get the term biofortification to apply to GMOs
will have left with her.

According to NHF,

Monsanto's attempt
was recognized by many delegates for what it was and denounced
in the meeting.

The fight, however,
will carry over to next year's meeting to be held in Berlin in
November 2018. And that meeting will be chaired by the
Committee's new chairwoman, Ms. Marie-Luise Trebes.